Per #2699, swap in a more resonable unit test for tc_pairs consensus …

…of diagnostics, work on log messages, and also make sure that the TCDIAG output columns are all populated.

internal/test_unit/config/TCPairsConfig_DIAGNOSTICS_CONSENSUS

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
 //
 // Models
 //
-model = [ "GFSI", "EMXI" ];
+model = [ "GFSO", "HWRF", "HMON" ];
 
 //
 // Description
@@ -96,11 +96,11 @@ interp12 = NONE;
 //
 consensus = [
    {
-      name          = "GFEX_CONS";
-      members       = [ "GFSI", "EMXI" ];
+      name          = "GFSO_HWRF_HMON_CONS";
+      members       = [ "GFSO", "HWRF", "HMON" ];
       required      = [];
       min_req       = 2;
-      diag_required = [];
+      diag_required = [ TRUE, FALSE, FALSE ];
       diag_min_req  = 2;
       write_members = TRUE;
    }

internal/test_unit/xml/unit_tc_pairs.xml

@@ -216,8 +216,9 @@
     <param> \
       -adeck &DATA_DIR;/adeck/aal092022.dat \
       -bdeck &DATA_DIR;/bdeck/bal092022.dat \
-      -diag CIRA_DIAG_RT &DATA_DIR;/diag/cira_diag_rt/2022/GFSI/sal092022_avni_doper_20220926*_diag.dat \
-      -diag CIRA_DIAG_RT &DATA_DIR;/diag/cira_diag_rt/2022/EMXI/sal092022_emxi_doper_20220926*_diag.dat \
+      -diag CIRA_DIAG_RT &DATA_DIR;/diag/cira_diag_rt/2022/sal092022_avno_doper_20220926*_diag.dat \
+      -diag CIRA_DIAG_RT &DATA_DIR;/diag/cira_diag_rt/2022/sal092022_hmon_doper_20220926*_diag.dat \
+      -diag CIRA_DIAG_RT &DATA_DIR;/diag/cira_diag_rt/2022/sal092022_hwrf_doper_20220926*_diag.dat \
       -config &CONFIG_DIR;/TCPairsConfig_DIAGNOSTICS_CONSENSUS \
       -out &OUTPUT_DIR;/tc_pairs/al092022_20220926_DIAGNOSTICS_CONSENSUS \
       -log &OUTPUT_DIR;/tc_pairs/tc_pairs_DIAGNOSTICS_CONSENSUS.log \

src/libcode/vx_tc_util/track_info.cc

@@ -1005,6 +1005,11 @@ TrackInfo consensus(const TrackInfoArray &tracks,
    tavg.set_init(tracks[0].init());
    tavg.set_storm_id();
 
+   // Diagnostic information
+   tavg.set_diag_source(tracks[0].diag_source());
+   tavg.set_track_source(tracks[0].track_source().c_str());
+   tavg.set_field_source(tracks[0].field_source().c_str());
+
    // Loop through the tracks and build a list of lead times
    for(i=0; i<tracks.n(); i++) {
 
@@ -1027,6 +1032,15 @@ TrackInfo consensus(const TrackInfoArray &tracks,
               << tracks[i].technique_number() << ").\n\n";
       }
 
+      // Warning if the diagnostic data source changes
+      if(tavg.diag_source() != tracks[i].diag_source()) {
+         mlog << Warning
+              << "\nTrackInfoArray::consensus() -> "
+              << "the diagnostic type has changed ("
+              << diagtype_to_string(tavg.diag_source()) << "!="
+              << diagtype_to_string(tracks[i].diag_source()) << ").\n\n";
+      }
+
       // Store unique diag_names in tavg object, unless they're all skipped
       if(!skip_all_diag) {
          for(j=0; j<tracks[i].diag_name().n(); j++) {
@@ -1175,9 +1189,6 @@ TrackInfo consensus(const TrackInfoArray &tracks,
       // Loop over the diag name and the input track points and
       // compute the mean across all members with the diag value
       for(j=0; j<tavg.diag_name().n(); j++) {
-
-         mlog << Debug(4) << "Computing consensus \""
-              << tavg.diag_name()[j] << "\" diagnostic value.\n";
 
          // Store diag_vals for one diag_name across all track points
          NumArray diag_vals;

src/tools/tc_utils/tc_pairs/tc_pairs.cc

@@ -1284,7 +1284,8 @@ int derive_consensus(TrackInfoArray &tracks) {
    } // end for i
 
    mlog << Debug(3)
-        << "Building consensus track(s) for " << case_list.n()
+        << "Building " << conf_info.NConsensus
+        << " consensus track(s) for " << case_list.n()
         << " cases.\n";
 
    // Loop through the cases and process each consensus model